(18-05-2015 02:45 AM)Szuchow Wrote: Yes, you try to put words in my mouth to be able to feel offended. Chrisitan doesn't equal idiot, indoctrinated also doesen't equal idiot, but I care not about what you think. It's counterproductive to explain it when you apparently believe otherwise.

I'm not offended at all. I was just pointing out the logical inconsistency within your statements. Whether or not you're willing to recognize what you said is up to you. It's okay though, we all do it sometimes.

And yes, I'm aware that being a Christian is different from being an idiot which is different from being indoctrinated. I'm sure you think being a Christian means you're indoctrinated and I'd disagree with you to some extent, but we can disagree on that without debating it.

So how exactly this logical inconsistency looks like if you too recognize that being an idiot is not the same thing as being indoctrinated?

And as for disagreement, why? You think it is not indoctrination but holy light of true faith? Or maybe informed choice of willing person?

Though if you do not feel like debating it treat these questions as rhetoricla ones.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

(18-05-2015 02:45 AM)Szuchow Wrote: Yes, you try to put words in my mouth to be able to feel offended. Chrisitan doesn't equal idiot, indoctrinated also doesen't equal idiot, but I care not about what you think. It's counterproductive to explain it when you apparently believe otherwise.

I'm not offended at all. I was just pointing out the logical inconsistency within your statements. Whether or not you're willing to recognize what you said is up to you. It's okay though, we all do it sometimes.

And yes, I'm aware that being a Christian is different from being an idiot which is different from being indoctrinated. I'm sure you think being a Christian means you're indoctrinated and I'd disagree with you to some extent, but we can disagree on that without debating it.

I don't quiet get why you took it this way, but it seems you are concluding the phrase. Maybe they weren't the sharpest ones around MEANS they are idiots... that's not a direct connection of what is being stated.

Especially it's clear that's not the point of what is being said when you add the purpose of the next statement.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(21-05-2015 09:52 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote: I'm not offended at all. I was just pointing out the logical inconsistency within your statements. Whether or not you're willing to recognize what you said is up to you. It's okay though, we all do it sometimes.

And yes, I'm aware that being a Christian is different from being an idiot which is different from being indoctrinated. I'm sure you think being a Christian means you're indoctrinated and I'd disagree with you to some extent, but we can disagree on that without debating it.

I don't quiet get why you took it this way, but it seems you are concluding the phrase. Maybe they weren't the sharpest ones around MEANS they are idiots... that's not a direct connection of what is being stated.

Especially it's clear that's not the point of what is being said when you add the purpose of the next statement.

I don't think that not being sharpest one around equals to being idiot. Though even if followers of Jesus indeed were idiots it don't mean that Christians equal idiots. Indoctrination isn't about idiocy.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

(21-05-2015 09:10 AM)Chas Wrote: We already have an unambiguous term for that: secular humanism.

No, none these individuals would classify themselves as secular humanist either, and probably have little in common with them to begin with.

Do you even know what secular humanism is?

"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."

It doesn't matter what they self-identify as - how do they behave?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. (See empiricism.)
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. (See ethical naturalism.)

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

(22-05-2015 05:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: I don't quiet get why you took it this way, but it seems you are concluding the phrase. Maybe they weren't the sharpest ones around MEANS they are idiots... that's not a direct connection of what is being stated.

Especially it's clear that's not the point of what is being said when you add the purpose of the next statement.

I was taking "maybe they weren't the sharpest" to mean "they're idiots". I realize I totally derailed the conversation from where it was before, but this red herring has entertained me.

(24-05-2015 06:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote: From the most recent Humanist Manifesto:

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. (See empiricism.)
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. (See ethical naturalism.)

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

(22-05-2015 06:07 AM)Szuchow Wrote: I don't think that not being sharpest one around equals to being idiot. Though even if followers of Jesus indeed were idiots it don't mean that Christians equal idiots. Indoctrination isn't about idiocy.

If not being the sharpest in the context of your original comment wasn't referring to them being idiotic, then what was it referring to?

If Jesus' followers aren't considered Christians. then what is a Christian? Or, if you're referring to the literal people who walked around following Jesus, you're presuming they actually existed? That would be interesting.

Yes, I've already agreed that being indoctrinated isn't the same as being an idiot. Though now that I consider it further, if you're indoctrinatable, that means that you lack some form of knowledge and are thus ignorant. ignorant+negative connotation = idiot. The argument could be made.